All prophets of God would be, word made flesh, wouldn't they? As they all carry a message in their actions to be lived out in a mong people.

So, yes, in some sense you are right that the prophets may be considered similarly, but in the wider view, and more importantly in keeping with historical Christian theology, there is one only eternal "kalimatullah", and that is Christ Jesus.

Al injil:

Quote from: John 1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

8 He (John the Baptist/other prophets) was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

Quote from: 1 John 1

We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of life— 2 this life was revealed, and we have seen it and testify to it, and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us— 3 we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.

As far as posting portions of the Quran, this is why I told Poppy to learn Arabic well enough to read it and understand. The Arabic language can't fully be translated to English so you will get one by one Author worded one way, and the next another due to transliteration. I thought someone would have cleared that bit up a while ago...maybe they did and I missed it. However I have no explanation for big discrepancies.

Logged

"A humble man who lives a spiritual life, when he reads the Holy Scriptures, will relate all things to himself and not to others.”

Spanish-Jewish folklore recounts that Adam’s first wife, Lilith, became a black vampire cat, sucking the blood from sleeping babies. This may be the root of the superstition that a cat will smother a sleeping baby or suck out the child’s breath.

The cat is also not mentioned explicitly in the Koran, although tafsīrs and ḥadīṯ frequently refer to it. According to Muslim mythology the cat was created on Noah’s Ark: Alarmed at the increasing number of mice Noah asked God for help; God ordered him to touch the lion’s head or rub its nostrils, whereupon the lion sneezed out a pair of cats (Jāḥeẓ, V, pp. 347-48; Baḷʿamī, ed. Bahār, I, pp. 140-41; Ḥoqūqī, III, p.25; Danhardt, I, pp. 271f.; Massé, p. 189; this myth may be at the root of the Persian folk belief that the cat is vain because it fell out of a lion’s nose, az damāḡ-e šīr oftāda; Hedāyat, pp.140-41; cf. Thompson, Motif A1811.2 “Creation of cat: Sneezed from lion’s nostrils”). In Islam the cat therefore carried good associations, and even the Prophet is said to have assigned the konya Abū Horayra to one of his companions whose affection for his pet kitten was well known. The Prophet’s affection for cats is also reflected in a tradition according to which he says about a woman who starved a cat to death that she would be punished in hell (Boḵārī, pp. 469-70; Ḥammām b. Monabbeh, p.36, trad. no. 89 and cf. pp. 389-90 for evidence from other ḥadīṯ compendia; Tūqadī, p. 103). Among the Sufis, Šeblī is said to have received divine forgiveness for his sins, not as a result of his piety but his kindness to a helpless kitten (Damīrī, II, p. 383). In Islam the cat, unlike the dog, is therefore also not considered to be “unclean.” According to a tradition traced to ʿĀyeša, the prophet’s wife, it is permissible to make ablutions with the water in a vessel from which a cat has already drunk (Ebn Māja, I, p. 131, trad. nos. 367-69). This is in stark contrast to the Zoroastrian belief that even if one were to wash a bowl from which a cat has eaten seven times it still would be unclean, that eating food touched by a cat’s whiskers will cause one to waste away, and that demons will enter a corpse seen by a cat (Boyce, Stronghold, p. 163 n. 51).

As far as posting portions of the Quran, this is why I told Poppy to learn Arabic well enough to read it and understand. The Arabic language can't fully be translated to English so you will get one by one Author worded one way, and the next another due to transliteration. I thought someone would have cleared that bit up a while ago...maybe they did and I missed it. However I have no explanation for big discrepancies.

Have you learned Greek and Hebrew and Latin and Russian and well I think you get my point.

Instead of actually discussing maximalism in Orthodoxy, you all just make implications about your opponent's penis, question his mental sanity, and then James runs in screaming bonzai.

in those ethnic settings I am firsthand familiar with, orthodoxy isn't maximalist really. it's a very easy-going, here comes everybody, hands-off (no pun intended) religion. which makes me suspect it has a kernel of sanity to it .

« Last Edit: November 06, 2013, 07:08:17 PM by augustin717 »

Logged

She hears, upon that water without sound, A voice that cries, “The tomb in Palestine Is not the porch of spirits lingering. It is the grave of Jesus, where he lay.” We live in an old chaos of the sun, Or old dependency of day and night, Or island solitude, unsponsored, free, Of that wide water, inescapable.

Mor, why do you say "give thanks to God" that modern Orthodoxy is not all-encompassing, and then in your next few sentences identify such with "boutique religion"?

I directed those remarks toward someone who seems to argue that Christianity is not as "in your business" as Islam. Actually, Christianity is very much "in your business", but the "how" and "in what way" and "to what extent" has differed over the course of time and in various contexts.

If, as we have received her faith and praxis, the Church hasn't dogmatised one or the other form of such "meddling" and mandated obligatory participation for all, then such a person as I was responding to ought to thank God that there is "freedom" in his time and context. In another time and place, the kind of religion he decries would've been the only option if he wanted to be Orthodox, and he might not have known any better anyway. If some people in other Christian denominations or other religions are in that situation today, I don't think we have the right to criticise. There but for the grace of God went we.

Moreover, I think we can all thank God that the Church "in-real-life" is not going to enable community enforcers to harass, punish, and hurt members for not following such strictures (the Church "on-the-internet", on the other hand, is full of such self-appointed characters). For particularly weighty violations, there are communal consequences, but most "violations" are at most dealt with in the context of confession but typically are dealt with by letting people participate as they are able and minding one's own business. I've yet to have acid thrown in my face because I don't recite verses from Psalm 50 while in the shower just because a prayer book somewhere says to do so because otherwise I might sensually focus on my nakedness.

So you think it's a good thing that modernization has brought the church to the point where it does not encourage one to pray while bathing.

That's not what he said. Besides, you should be praying unceasingly, which includes while bathing.

Yes, that is what he said. If not I've given him ample opportunity to clarify himself and his response has been to, as is his usual, to insult me.

The church had a tradition to facilitate prayer without ceasing by encouraging a certain prayer while bathing. Nobody really actively encourages this tradition anymore, and Mor Ephrem is thankful to God because of this. He can only conceive of two options:

1. this tradition either being in complete disuse or 2. A cartoonish caricature where people are bullied and acid is thrown into people's face for not following said tradition.

Logged

Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully, and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood.

Yes, that is what he said. If not I've given him ample opportunity to clarify himself and his response has been to, as is his usual, to insult me.

William,

You asked me a question, I answered it. Your problem is that you didn't like the answer, think you know my thinking better than I do, and decided to keep pushing a point I never made in the first place. That's why I insult you. When you don't take yourself seriously, why should I?

Mor, why do you say "give thanks to God" that modern Orthodoxy is not all-encompassing, and then in your next few sentences identify such with "boutique religion"?

I directed those remarks toward someone who seems to argue that Christianity is not as "in your business" as Islam. Actually, Christianity is very much "in your business", but the "how" and "in what way" and "to what extent" has differed over the course of time and in various contexts.

If, as we have received her faith and praxis, the Church hasn't dogmatised one or the other form of such "meddling" and mandated obligatory participation for all, then such a person as I was responding to ought to thank God that there is "freedom" in his time and context. In another time and place, the kind of religion he decries would've been the only option if he wanted to be Orthodox, and he might not have known any better anyway. If some people in other Christian denominations or other religions are in that situation today, I don't think we have the right to criticise. There but for the grace of God went we.

Moreover, I think we can all thank God that the Church "in-real-life" is not going to enable community enforcers to harass, punish, and hurt members for not following such strictures (the Church "on-the-internet", on the other hand, is full of such self-appointed characters). For particularly weighty violations, there are communal consequences, but most "violations" are at most dealt with in the context of confession but typically are dealt with by letting people participate as they are able and minding one's own business. I've yet to have acid thrown in my face because I don't recite verses from Psalm 50 while in the shower just because a prayer book somewhere says to do so because otherwise I might sensually focus on my nakedness.

So you think it's a good thing that modernization has brought the church to the point where it does not encourage one to pray while bathing.

That's not what he said. Besides, you should be praying unceasingly, which includes while bathing.

Yes, that is what he said. If not I've given him ample opportunity to clarify himself and his response has been to, as is his usual, to insult me.

The church had a tradition to facilitate prayer without ceasing by encouraging a certain prayer while bathing. Nobody really actively encourages this tradition anymore, and Mor Ephrem is thankful to God because of this. He can only conceive of two options:

1. this tradition either being in complete disuse or 2. A cartoonish caricature where people are bullied and acid is thrown into people's face for not following said tradition.

Dude you have to know when you are in above your head . . . You think of all people you would have gotten that lesson by now.

Mor, why do you say "give thanks to God" that modern Orthodoxy is not all-encompassing, and then in your next few sentences identify such with "boutique religion"?

I directed those remarks toward someone who seems to argue that Christianity is not as "in your business" as Islam. Actually, Christianity is very much "in your business", but the "how" and "in what way" and "to what extent" has differed over the course of time and in various contexts.

If, as we have received her faith and praxis, the Church hasn't dogmatised one or the other form of such "meddling" and mandated obligatory participation for all, then such a person as I was responding to ought to thank God that there is "freedom" in his time and context. In another time and place, the kind of religion he decries would've been the only option if he wanted to be Orthodox, and he might not have known any better anyway. If some people in other Christian denominations or other religions are in that situation today, I don't think we have the right to criticise. There but for the grace of God went we.

Moreover, I think we can all thank God that the Church "in-real-life" is not going to enable community enforcers to harass, punish, and hurt members for not following such strictures (the Church "on-the-internet", on the other hand, is full of such self-appointed characters). For particularly weighty violations, there are communal consequences, but most "violations" are at most dealt with in the context of confession but typically are dealt with by letting people participate as they are able and minding one's own business. I've yet to have acid thrown in my face because I don't recite verses from Psalm 50 while in the shower just because a prayer book somewhere says to do so because otherwise I might sensually focus on my nakedness.

So you think it's a good thing that modernization has brought the church to the point where it does not encourage one to pray while bathing.

That's not what he said. Besides, you should be praying unceasingly, which includes while bathing.

Yes, that is what he said. If not I've given him ample opportunity to clarify himself and his response has been to, as is his usual, to insult me.

The church had a tradition to facilitate prayer without ceasing by encouraging a certain prayer while bathing. Nobody really actively encourages this tradition anymore, and Mor Ephrem is thankful to God because of this. He can only conceive of two options:

1. this tradition either being in complete disuse or 2. A cartoonish caricature where people are bullied and acid is thrown into people's face for not following said tradition.

Dude you have to know when you are in above your head . . . You think of all people you would have gotten that lesson by now.

Well you've consistently shown a complete lack of any sort of real understanding of Orthodoxy on this board, so I'll just ignore you.

Logged

Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully, and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood.

Nice to know that the Saudis at least have a bit more sense and justification for divorce than we do in America...

James,

I've been remiss in mentioning, but your avatar is the greatest ever. I am telling you, it literally makes my day when I see it.

Keep up the good work. Despite what some might say, you have a very strong voice for such a young man with some substance to back it up. Unlike many young people around here, you speak from heart and gut and occasionally the mind (which is the least important in life) rather than trying to channel some weird confabulation of the din of middle aged, reactionary men which tends to pass for wisdom somehow around here.

Mor, why do you say "give thanks to God" that modern Orthodoxy is not all-encompassing, and then in your next few sentences identify such with "boutique religion"?

I directed those remarks toward someone who seems to argue that Christianity is not as "in your business" as Islam. Actually, Christianity is very much "in your business", but the "how" and "in what way" and "to what extent" has differed over the course of time and in various contexts.

If, as we have received her faith and praxis, the Church hasn't dogmatised one or the other form of such "meddling" and mandated obligatory participation for all, then such a person as I was responding to ought to thank God that there is "freedom" in his time and context. In another time and place, the kind of religion he decries would've been the only option if he wanted to be Orthodox, and he might not have known any better anyway. If some people in other Christian denominations or other religions are in that situation today, I don't think we have the right to criticise. There but for the grace of God went we.

Moreover, I think we can all thank God that the Church "in-real-life" is not going to enable community enforcers to harass, punish, and hurt members for not following such strictures (the Church "on-the-internet", on the other hand, is full of such self-appointed characters). For particularly weighty violations, there are communal consequences, but most "violations" are at most dealt with in the context of confession but typically are dealt with by letting people participate as they are able and minding one's own business. I've yet to have acid thrown in my face because I don't recite verses from Psalm 50 while in the shower just because a prayer book somewhere says to do so because otherwise I might sensually focus on my nakedness.

So you think it's a good thing that modernization has brought the church to the point where it does not encourage one to pray while bathing.

That's not what he said. Besides, you should be praying unceasingly, which includes while bathing.

Yes, that is what he said. If not I've given him ample opportunity to clarify himself and his response has been to, as is his usual, to insult me.

The church had a tradition to facilitate prayer without ceasing by encouraging a certain prayer while bathing. Nobody really actively encourages this tradition anymore, and Mor Ephrem is thankful to God because of this. He can only conceive of two options:

1. this tradition either being in complete disuse or 2. A cartoonish caricature where people are bullied and acid is thrown into people's face for not following said tradition.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

xOrthodox4Christx said: "The idea that Islam encompasses all of your life and dealings is what turns me off to it. It makes you incapable of thinking for yourself. You are controlled by a system of laws and religious doctrine." This started the whole exchange, which Mor disagreed with and gave specific examples of prayers for various daily tasks and said "If we are more "liberal" about such things nowadays in 21st century America, then give thanks to God." He was not giving thanks to God himself, he was giving instruction to xOrthodox4Christx, a person who had already expressed his feelings that he doesn't like the idea of religious rituals for the minutiae of daily life. Are you familiar with an imperative sentence?

Mor, why do you say "give thanks to God" that modern Orthodoxy is not all-encompassing, and then in your next few sentences identify such with "boutique religion"?

I directed those remarks toward someone who seems to argue that Christianity is not as "in your business" as Islam. Actually, Christianity is very much "in your business", but the "how" and "in what way" and "to what extent" has differed over the course of time and in various contexts.

If, as we have received her faith and praxis, the Church hasn't dogmatised one or the other form of such "meddling" and mandated obligatory participation for all, then such a person as I was responding to ought to thank God that there is "freedom" in his time and context. In another time and place, the kind of religion he decries would've been the only option if he wanted to be Orthodox, and he might not have known any better anyway. If some people in other Christian denominations or other religions are in that situation today, I don't think we have the right to criticise. There but for the grace of God went we.

Moreover, I think we can all thank God that the Church "in-real-life" is not going to enable community enforcers to harass, punish, and hurt members for not following such strictures (the Church "on-the-internet", on the other hand, is full of such self-appointed characters). For particularly weighty violations, there are communal consequences, but most "violations" are at most dealt with in the context of confession but typically are dealt with by letting people participate as they are able and minding one's own business. I've yet to have acid thrown in my face because I don't recite verses from Psalm 50 while in the shower just because a prayer book somewhere says to do so because otherwise I might sensually focus on my nakedness.

So you think it's a good thing that modernization has brought the church to the point where it does not encourage one to pray while bathing.

That's not what he said. Besides, you should be praying unceasingly, which includes while bathing.

Yes, that is what he said. If not I've given him ample opportunity to clarify himself and his response has been to, as is his usual, to insult me.

The church had a tradition to facilitate prayer without ceasing by encouraging a certain prayer while bathing. Nobody really actively encourages this tradition anymore, and Mor Ephrem is thankful to God because of this. He can only conceive of two options:

1. this tradition either being in complete disuse or 2. A cartoonish caricature where people are bullied and acid is thrown into people's face for not following said tradition.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

xOrthodox4Christx said: "The idea that Islam encompasses all of your life and dealings is what turns me off to it. It makes you incapable of thinking for yourself. You are controlled by a system of laws and religious doctrine." This started the whole exchange, which Mor disagreed with and gave specific examples of prayers for various daily tasks and said "If we are more "liberal" about such things nowadays in 21st century America, then give thanks to God." He was not giving thanks to God himself, he was giving instruction to xOrthodox4Christx, a person who had already expressed his feelings that he doesn't like the idea of religious rituals for the minutiae of daily life. Are you familiar with an imperative sentence?

Sheesh, not even I get upbraided by Zealous . . . and everyone knows I am a jerk. I dunno, when the most even tempered posters begin losing their nerve . . .

"The Old Testament says, “He whose testicles are crushed or whose male member is cut off shall not enter the assembly of the Lord.” Rabbis had to show those parts were in working order before they could lead a temple."

LOL!!

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

"The Old Testament says, “He whose testicles are crushed or whose male member is cut off shall not enter the assembly of the Lord.” Rabbis had to show those parts were in working order before they could lead a temple."

"The Old Testament says, “He whose testicles are crushed or whose male member is cut off shall not enter the assembly of the Lord.” Rabbis had to show those parts were in working order before they could lead a temple."

LOL!!

Try taking a vow of celibacy and see what happens.

I wondered if the advent of viagra allowed certain men to be able to finally join the ranks of such avowed men.

"The Old Testament says, “He whose testicles are crushed or whose male member is cut off shall not enter the assembly of the Lord.” Rabbis had to show those parts were in working order before they could lead a temple."

LOL!!

Try taking a vow of celibacy and see what happens.

I wondered if the advent of viagra allowed certain men to be able to finally join the ranks of such avowed men.

Guardians of the harem beds in great Muslim empires were required to be “shaved,” which meant having both the testicles and penis removed.

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

"The Old Testament says, “He whose testicles are crushed or whose male member is cut off shall not enter the assembly of the Lord.” Rabbis had to show those parts were in working order before they could lead a temple."

LOL!!

Technically, that's still required of Christian ministers too.

And rabbis never served in the Temple. (Some Jews would call their synagogues "temples", though).

"The Old Testament says, “He whose testicles are crushed or whose male member is cut off shall not enter the assembly of the Lord.” Rabbis had to show those parts were in working order before they could lead a temple."

LOL!!

I'm reminded of the scene in The Borgias after Rodrigo is elected Pope. They bring in some specially constructed stool so that he can sit down among the Cardinals and have his genitals verified manually. I never thought I'd hear "Habet duos testiculos, bene pendentes" on any sort of TV. It was a defining moment in my life, a moment where you know nothing will ever be the same again, and there's no going back to a more innocent time when you could believe that Popes were never voluntarily molested before assuming office.

This thread was only started on October 20th, and it's got over 600 posts? Are you serious? I ain't reading from the beginning. No way.

Logged

Some of my questions might appear patently stupid to those well-versed in Orthodoxy, but I'm brand new, having no background in the faith. Please grant me a great deal of patience and consideration as I learn the basics.

"The Old Testament says, “He whose testicles are crushed or whose male member is cut off shall not enter the assembly of the Lord.” Rabbis had to show those parts were in working order before they could lead a temple."

LOL!!

I'm reminded of the scene in The Borgias after Rodrigo is elected Pope. They bring in some specially constructed stool so that he can sit down among the Cardinals and have his genitals verified manually. I never thought I'd hear "Habet duos testiculos, bene pendentes" on any sort of TV. It was a defining moment in my life, a moment where you know nothing will ever be the same again, and there's no going back to a more innocent time when you could believe that Popes were never voluntarily molested before assuming office.

Did you see my comment / link of the betterness of Borgia over The Borgias?

"The Old Testament says, “He whose testicles are crushed or whose male member is cut off shall not enter the assembly of the Lord.” Rabbis had to show those parts were in working order before they could lead a temple."

LOL!!

I'm reminded of the scene in The Borgias after Rodrigo is elected Pope. They bring in some specially constructed stool so that he can sit down among the Cardinals and have his genitals verified manually. I never thought I'd hear "Habet duos testiculos, bene pendentes" on any sort of TV. It was a defining moment in my life, a moment where you know nothing will ever be the same again, and there's no going back to a more innocent time when you could believe that Popes were never voluntarily molested before assuming office.

Anybody want to do the punchline?

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

I'm reminded of the scene in The Borgias after Rodrigo is elected Pope. They bring in some specially constructed stool so that he can sit down among the Cardinals and have his genitals verified manually. I never thought I'd hear "Habet duos testiculos, bene pendentes" on any sort of TV. It was a defining moment in my life, a moment where you know nothing will ever be the same again, and there's no going back to a more innocent time when you could believe that Popes were never voluntarily molested before assuming office.

It is impossible to now UNread that. Thanks, Mor. I'm scarred for life.

Logged

Some of my questions might appear patently stupid to those well-versed in Orthodoxy, but I'm brand new, having no background in the faith. Please grant me a great deal of patience and consideration as I learn the basics.

"The Old Testament says, “He whose testicles are crushed or whose male member is cut off shall not enter the assembly of the Lord.” Rabbis had to show those parts were in working order before they could lead a temple."

LOL!!

I'm reminded of the scene in The Borgias after Rodrigo is elected Pope. They bring in some specially constructed stool so that he can sit down among the Cardinals and have his genitals verified manually. I never thought I'd hear "Habet duos testiculos, bene pendentes" on any sort of TV. It was a defining moment in my life, a moment where you know nothing will ever be the same again, and there's no going back to a more innocent time when you could believe that Popes were never voluntarily molested before assuming office.

Mor, why do you say "give thanks to God" that modern Orthodoxy is not all-encompassing, and then in your next few sentences identify such with "boutique religion"?

I directed those remarks toward someone who seems to argue that Christianity is not as "in your business" as Islam. Actually, Christianity is very much "in your business", but the "how" and "in what way" and "to what extent" has differed over the course of time and in various contexts.

If, as we have received her faith and praxis, the Church hasn't dogmatised one or the other form of such "meddling" and mandated obligatory participation for all, then such a person as I was responding to ought to thank God that there is "freedom" in his time and context. In another time and place, the kind of religion he decries would've been the only option if he wanted to be Orthodox, and he might not have known any better anyway. If some people in other Christian denominations or other religions are in that situation today, I don't think we have the right to criticise. There but for the grace of God went we.

Moreover, I think we can all thank God that the Church "in-real-life" is not going to enable community enforcers to harass, punish, and hurt members for not following such strictures (the Church "on-the-internet", on the other hand, is full of such self-appointed characters). For particularly weighty violations, there are communal consequences, but most "violations" are at most dealt with in the context of confession but typically are dealt with by letting people participate as they are able and minding one's own business. I've yet to have acid thrown in my face because I don't recite verses from Psalm 50 while in the shower just because a prayer book somewhere says to do so because otherwise I might sensually focus on my nakedness.

So you think it's a good thing that modernization has brought the church to the point where it does not encourage one to pray while bathing.

That's not what he said. Besides, you should be praying unceasingly, which includes while bathing.

Yes, that is what he said. If not I've given him ample opportunity to clarify himself and his response has been to, as is his usual, to insult me.

The church had a tradition to facilitate prayer without ceasing by encouraging a certain prayer while bathing. Nobody really actively encourages this tradition anymore, and Mor Ephrem is thankful to God because of this. He can only conceive of two options:

1. this tradition either being in complete disuse or 2. A cartoonish caricature where people are bullied and acid is thrown into people's face for not following said tradition.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

xOrthodox4Christx said: "The idea that Islam encompasses all of your life and dealings is what turns me off to it. It makes you incapable of thinking for yourself. You are controlled by a system of laws and religious doctrine." This started the whole exchange, which Mor disagreed with and gave specific examples of prayers for various daily tasks and said "If we are more "liberal" about such things nowadays in 21st century America, then give thanks to God." He was not giving thanks to God himself, he was giving instruction to xOrthodox4Christx, a person who had already expressed his feelings that he doesn't like the idea of religious rituals for the minutiae of daily life. Are you familiar with an imperative sentence?

Then he went to talk about how it is a good thing, because otherwise people would be throwing acid in one's face (I'm still really confused about how that connection was made).

Thanks for replying substantively, though.

Logged

Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully, and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood.

And rabbis never served in the Temple. (Some Jews would call their synagogues "temples", though).

Romaios we should collaborate on a new random history and facts website.

Quote from: Apostolic Canons

Canon XXI.

An eunuch, if he has been made so by the violence of men [some mss. add: or if his virilia have been amputated] in times of persecution, or if he has been born so, if in other respects he is worthy, may be made a bishop.

Canon XXII.

He who has mutilated himself, cannot become a clergyman, for he is a self-murderer, and an enemy to the workmanship of God.

Canon XXIII.

If any man being a clergyman shall mutilate himself, let him be deposed, for he is a self-murderer.

Canon XXIV.

If a layman mutilate himself, let him be excommunicated for three years, as practising against his own life.